Status Quo at the Holy Places

Confidential.

NOTE.—The accounts of practice given in this Print are not to be taken as necessarily having official authority.

THE STATUS QUO

IN THE HOLY PLACES

L. G. A. CUST,

formerly District Officer, Jerusalem.

With an Annexe on

the status quo IN THE church OF THE nativity, bethlehem.

by abdullah effendi kardus, M.B.E., formerly District Officer, Bethlehem Sub-District.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

It is probably true to say that no question more constantly exercised the Moslem rulers of Palestine and took up more of their time than the ever recurring difficulties and disputes arising out of the circumstance that the Christian Holy Places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem were not in one ownership but were shared and served by several communities. In this respect the experience of the British Mandatory Government has not differed greatly from that of their Ottoman predecessor. As the several ecclesiastical communities represented in the Holy Places waxed or waned in influence or even (as in the case of the Georgians) lost all representation in the Holy Land, so their shares in the sanctuaries fluctuated and their boundaries within the shrines tended to depend upon the numbers, wealth, and even strong right arm, of the parties concerned and upon the favour of the Sultan. And that the latter was sometimes a precarious asset is shewn by the circumstance that between the years 1630 to 1637—a particularly important period in the history of the Holy Places—the right of pre-eminence (praedominium) in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Church of the Virgin near Gethsemane, and the Basilica of the Nativity at Bethlehem, alternated no fewer than six times, at the caprice of Sultan Murad IV, between the two principal shareholders, the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics.

Article LXII of the Treaty of Berlin proclaims the inviolability of the status quo of the Holy Places, and the phrase status quo has tlius assumed a wide significance in this connexion, since it is to it that appeal is made in all questions which arise within these sacred and much contested walls. Not only Orthodox and Latins, but Armenians, Copts, Jacobites and Abyssinians have still their shares in the Holy Places ; and, owing to the complexity of the shares, to the frequent absence of authoritative rulings, and to contradictory decisions given in the past, the status quo is often difficult to define.

On this account the Paper prepared by Mr. L. G. A. Cust, who has had several years of experience in the Jerusalem District Administration, supplemented by a detailed description of the complicated practice at Bethlehem by Abdullah Effendi Kardus, M.B.E., District Officer of the Bethlehem Sub-District, will be of practical value to the officers of the Government of Palestine who have to administer and give decisions upon the interpretation of the status quo. While it does not attempt the vast task of examining and

INDEX.

Page.
Introduction .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1

The Status Quo : its Origin and History till the Present Time .. .. 3
The Holy Places affected by the Status Quo and its General Principles .. 12

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre .. • • . • .. .. 13

the parvis .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. 15

the entrance .. .- .. .. . . .. .. 17

the stone of unction . . . . . . .. .. .. 19

the station OF THE holy women . . . . . . . . . . 20

the rotunda .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 20

the edicule . . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. 22

the chapel OF st. nicodemus . . . . . . . . . . 23

the choir or katholikon . . .. . . .. .. .. 26

the commemorative shrines . . . . . . .. . . 27

calvary.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..29

the upper portions OF THE holy sepulchre . . . . . . 30

the convent OF deir AL sultan . . . . . . . . . . 30

The Sanctuary of the Ascension .. .. • • • • •. .. 33

The Tomb of the Virgin at Gethsemane .. • • • • . • .. 34

The Church of the Nativity .. .. .. .. . • .. .. 36

the parvis .. . . .. .. . . .. .. .. 38

the entrance doorway .. .. .. . . .. .. 38

the narthex .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. 39

the nave . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 39

the choir or katholikon .. .. . . . . . . .. 40

the church of st. nicholas .. . . . . .. .. 40

the armenian church of the NATr"rr y .. .. .. ..40

the grotto .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..41

the manger . . .. . . . . . . .. .. .. 43

The Wailing Wall .. .. .. . •. . • .. .. 43

Rachel's Tomb .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..46

The Status Quo in the Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem .. .. annexe

Appendix.

The Mandate, Articles 13 and 14 .. .. .. .. .. .. A

The Palestine (Holy Places) Order in Council, 1924 .. .. .. B

The Ceremony of the Holy Fire .. .. .. .. .. .. C

Bibliography •. .. .. .. . •. • • • • • • D

Confidential.

"the status quo IN THE holy places," BY mr. L. G. A. cust. corrigenda AND addendum.

The following alterations should be made in the Section relative to the " Wailing Wall " commencing on page 43.

At the beginning of the last paragraph on page 44, for the first seven words substitute " In certain Jewish circles, however, this right to pray has been."

After " but " in line 5 on page 45 the words " for a time " should be inserted and " were " substituted for " are " in the same line.

At the end of tlie first paragraph on page 45 the following new paragraphs should be inserted :—

After the disturbances of August, 1929, the High Commissioner issued provisional instructions, in the interests of order and decorum, for the observances at the Wall. By these instructions the Jews were forbidden to bring to the Wall any screens or curtains or any seating accommodation. It was provided, however, that, on the occasions of the feasts of the New Year and the Day of Atonement, a prayer mat of approved size might be brought by each Jewish worshipper and certain approved ritual appurtenances only might also be brought. The Moslems were required during and on the eve of Jewish Sabbaths and recognized Jewish Holy Days to ensure that the wooden door giving access from the pavement to Zawieh at the southern end of the Wall, shall remain locked, and to refrain from driving animals along the pavement before the Wall.

These instructions were to be effective only until the rights at the Wall of the two Communities should have been defined by an authoritative body.

A public announcement was made by the High Commissioner on the 23rd January, 1930, to the effect that the Council of the League of Nations, having agreed that the question of the rights and claims of Jews and Moslems with regard to the Wailing Wall urgently called for final settlement, had decided that the settlement should be entrusted to a Commission to consist of three members appointed by the Mandatory and approved by the Council of the League, who should not be of British nationality and at least one of whom should be a person of eminence qualified for the purpose by the judicial functions he has performed.

Steps are now being taken to appoint this Commission. March, 1930.

INTRODUCTION.

Article 13 of the Mandate for Palestine lays on the Mandatory Power the responsibility of preserving existing rights in the Holy Places.

Article 14 provides for the constitution of a special Commission to study, define and determine the rights and claims in connexion with the Holy Places. This Commission has never yet been formed, and in consequence, the Government of Palestine is still under the obligation to maintain the Status Quo in every respect.

Although the arguments of the various claimants in the question of the Holy Places have been set out at length, there has hitherto been no attempt made to discover and codify as far as is possible what is the practice at the present time, and, irrespective of what is claimed, what are the existing rights that thus the Palestine Government is bound to preserve.

The experience of nearly five years as an administrative officer in Jerusalem is embodied in the following pages. But the Status Quo is not a growth of recent date ; it is an evolution that traces its beginning to the early centuries of the history of the Church. Consequently, to obtain a proper perspective and so be able to appreciate what is the true meaning and import of occurrences that appear at first sight to be trivial, it is essential to comprehend how the position arose. A description is therefore given of the origin and history of the conflicts and rivalries in the Holy Places that culminated in the declaration of the Status Quo by the Sultan in the middle of the last century. The prejudice, it should however be realised, of the various authorities, as well as the valuelessness of firmans and other documents which often are directly contradictory, makes the study of this problem very difficult except when guided by actual experience.

It cannot be denied that the moment is opportune for an attempt to arrive at a solution of the question of the Holy Places. The most important external influences have disappeared for ever, and largely on this account, despite occasional setbacks, a new spirit of accommodation is increasingly evident among the representatives of the various rites that live together in these sacred surroundings. It is most sincerely hoped that the information collected in these pages may be of assistance to this end.

Reports drawn up by Bishara Effendi Habib, who was for over thirty years in the political office of the Mutesarrif of Jerusalem, and has always shown himself ready to put his wide experience at the

THE STATUS QUO. ITS ORIGIN AND HISTORY TILL THE PRESENT TIME.

To form a just appreciation of what is signified by the Status Quo in the Holy Places and thus arrive at a clear understanding of the various rights and privileges that arise from it, it is necessary to trace the development of the Church from its earliest days. For in all its salient features the Status Quo is the logical outcome of some occurrence in history, until gradually the present complicated network of rights and privileges is produced.

It is natural that the actual scenes connected with the Life on earth of Our Lord must from earliest times have been of surpassing interest to His followers, and there has been no important event connected with the history of the Church that has not had its repercussion in the Holy Places.*

A fundamental reason for the present state of affairs is the fact that, except for limited periods, the Holy Places were for 13 centuries under the dominion of a non-Christian power from whom concessions were obtainable by diplomatic pressure or other influences. A remarkable feature, however, of the Moslem domination is the tolerance displayed on all but very rare occasions towards the Christians. The barbarian invaders of Syria and Palestine, such as the Persiansf and the Charismians spread widespread destruction, and the mad Caliph al Hakem destroyed with scientific thoroughness the second Church of the Holy Sepulchre, but the original Arab invaders and the Saracens later acted in the spirit of protectors rather than conquerors. This magnanimous attitude was doubtless encouraged in some degree by the fact that the Holy Places and the contentions of the different Christian sects on their account were profitable sources of income, but in Moslem eyes the Christians (like the Jews) are Kitabis, i.e. People of the Book, worshippers of the true God, but not in the right way, and whom the Prophet ordained should not be persecuted. \

In strong contrast is the rivalry of the Christian Churches and Powers. The history of the Holy Places is one long story of bitter animosities and contentions, in which outside influences take part in an increasing degree, until the scenes of Our Lord's life on earth become a political shuttlecock, and eventually the cause of international conflict. If the Holy Places and the rights pertaining

* Except perhaps the Reformation, which concerned Western Christianity alone.

+ The story is told that the hordes of Chosroes in A.D. 614 spared the Basilica of the Nativity because over the doorway there was a large mosaic depicting the visit of the Magi in a Persian setting.

j: See Fortescue, The Orthodox Eastern Church, pp. 234-7.

thereto are an " expression of men's feelings about Him whose story hallowed those sites,"* they are also an index of the corruptions and intrigues of despots and chancelleries during eight hundred years. The logical results have been the spirit of distrust and suspicion, and the attitude of intractability in all matters, even if only of the most trivial importance, concerning the Holy Places.

A. Early Period.

In the earliest days the Church was one and undivided. Administratively it was split up into three great Patriarchates : Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Jerusalem, under its Roman name of Aelia Capitolina, was a bishopric in the Patriarchate of Antioch depending on the Metropolis of Caesarea, at that time the administrative centre as well. Such was the position when Constantine founded the great Churches of the Anastasis and the Nativity.

By the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313, Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire, and the body politic of the Church set about organising itself. Seven great Councils were held, all of which were fraught with matters of great import for the future history of the Church.•]•

At the Council of Nicaea we find the Bishop of the Holy City, who had already obtained a form of honorary primacy, being accorded " the succession of honour " (dcxoXouOiiXv r^c, ti.}jlt](;). At the First Council of Constantinople, the newly elevated Capital of the Empire was created a fourth Patriarchate. At the Council of Ephesus, Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem attempted to obtain like privileges ; he failed then, but succeeded a little later at Chalcedon, and so Jerusalem became the fifth Patriarchate. The venerable antiquity of the Jerusalem Patriarchate is therefore apparent.

These Councils, however, produced the heresies to which the lesser Eastern Churches trace their origin. After the Council of Ephesus the heresy of Nestorius broke off a large portion of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and the Council of Chalcedon saw the rise of Mono-physism, and the separatist Churches of this communion, the Armenian, Coptic,^ Syrian Jacobite,§ and Abyssinian.

* Waddy.

f Nicaea (325), Constantinople I (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451), Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (681), Nicaea II (787).

^ The Copts were originally the nonconformist Christians of Egypt. The words Copt and Egypt are of the same derivation.

§ The Syrian Jacobites like to attribute their origin to the Apostle St. James. The name " Jacobites" is actually derived from a monk, Jacob Baradai, who, under the protection of the Empress Theodora, wife of Justinian I, who liad Monophysite sympathies, was in some sort the founder of this Church in the (-itii century. Their official designation is " The Syrian Orthodox Church."

So by the time of the Moslem invasion we find the Church in the East already sub-divided into various sects, all of whom doubtless shared in the common worship at the Holy Places, arranging among themselves the order of their services. But there was only one Patriarch, the Orthodox, and it was the Orthodox Patriarch Sophro-nius who arranged the terms of capitulation with the Khalif Omar, and again the Orthodox Patriarch Nikephorus who obtained leave from the tyrant El Hakem for the Christians of all rites to resume their services amid the ruins of the Holy Sepulchre he had destroyed. Nor do we hear of any rivalry in these times between Eastern and Western Christianity. On the contrary, Haroun-al-Rashid appealed to Charlemagne for succour for the poor Christians in Jerusalem, sending him at the same time the keys of the Holy Sepulchre.* It is clear that the divisions and schisms in the Church elsewhere were not felt as yet in the Holy City.

That during the earliest centuries there was thus harmony and not discord in the Holy Places is generally accepted by authorities on this period. In the official exposes of the Roman Catholic point of view, one of which was submitted to the Peace Conference in 1919, and another published by the Franciscans in 1922,-j" no mention is made of any claim in regard to the Holy Places prior to the era of the Crusades. This is duly noted in a memorandum in reply drawn up by the Reverend Archbishop Timotheos Themeles, formerly Chief Secretary of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem.:}: Similarly that the Khalif Omar entrusted the custody of the Holy Places to the Greek element as distinct from tlie other Christian sects is an historical impossibility. §

B. The Crusades.

With the arrival of the Crusaders, however, a far-reaching change took place in the history of the Holy Places. Although in the first years after the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 the Frankish strangers and the indigenous Christians worked hand in hand in restoring the ruined shrines, the cleavage between the two elements became more and more pronounced. During the existence of the Latin Kingdom the Latin element enjoyed the paramountcy {fraedo-minium) in all the Holy Places, and the Orthodox Patriarch retired to Constantinople. At the same time we read in the account of

* Charlemagne also built a hostel in the Holy City for pilgrims. Bernard the Wise stayed here in A.D. 867-

f Les Lieux Saints de la Palestine (pro manuscripto).

\ ' Greeks and Franciscans in the Holy Places, 1919."

§ The famous " Akhdname " or Firman of Omar (636) in the possession of the Orthodox Patriarchate is in some quarters held to be a forgery of the 17th century (see Franciscan Memorandum of 1922, p. 25).

the monk Theodoric, writing about 1172, that there were still at that time representatives of the other churches ministering under the roof of the Holy Sepulchre, though " differing in language and in their manner of conducting divine service."*

Two events now occurred which had an important and far-reaching influence on the question of the Holy Places. The reunion Councils that were held subsequent to the schism of Cerularius in 1054 proved abortive, and after the last one held at Florence in 1438, the estrangement between Eastern and Western Christendom became final and complete, and in the histories and records from that time onwards Latin and Orthodox are to each other dissidents, schismatics, and heretics.

The second event constitutes one ot the blackest chapters in the history of European civilization. In 1187 the Crusaders lost Jerusalem to Saladin. Preached by Pope Innocent III, the Fourth Crusade set out in 1204 from Venice for Palestine. Instead of proceeding to recover the Holy Places from the hands of the Infidel, the Crusaders found it easier to fight Christians than Saracens and plundered and sacked the centre of Eastern Christianity with all conceivable cruelty and horror.f The Pope, indeed, no sooner heard how the forces and money raised for a Holy War were being used by these " Soldiers of the Cross," when he excommunicated the whole force. But these abominable and unpardonable acts were never forgotten, and from, thenceforth the Eastern Church looked for its revenge on the West.^

From every point of view, therefore, political, racial and theological, the issue is now denned, and on all these grounds the Holy Places are from that time to this the battle-field of the contesting parties.

For a century or so, even after the fall of Jerusalem, Latin supremacy was maintained; the treaties made by the Crusaders with the Moslems were to secure the position of the Latins alone, and the presence of the other rites was at times barely tolerated. But the end of undisputed Latin supremacy soon came. In 1291 Acre fell, and the other rites began to return, so that Ludolf of Sudheim, writing an account of his travels in 1348, enumerates seven sects as again being in occupation. Latin paramountcy, however, lasted for some time, largely on account of the support given by the Dukes of Burgundy.

* See Luke, Prophets, Priests and Patriarchs, p. 40.

f A quarter of Constantinople was burned down, and for days the massacre continued. What was not destroyed was looted. The four great bronze horses outside St. Mark's at Venice were carried off on this occasion.

For the story of this Crusade see the Chronicles of Villehardouin.

% Fortescue has an interesting note that in a Greek school primer there occurs a lurid account of the horrors done by the Franks in 1204, out of hatred of the Orthodox Faith.

It is to be noted that about this time, in A.D. 1230, the Franciscan Order was established in Jerusalem and became the official representatives of Roman Catholicism in the Holy Places, with their headquarters in the Cenacle on Mount Zion, obtained from the Egyptian Sultan, Melek-el-Nasr, in 1332, for 30,000 ducats.

C. The Turkish Conquest.

In 1453, after Western Christianity, with a few honourable exceptions, had refused to come to its aid, Constantinople fell to the victorious army of Sultan Mohammed II. The Byzantine Christians soon, however, found that the Turkish Conqueror, as the Arab centuries before, was prepared to treat his subject peoples with tolerance, under certain clear and unargueable conditions. Not unmindful of their sufferings during the last three hundred years, it is no wonder that they found the Sultan's turban preferable to the Pope's tiara. Accordingly, in the 16th century, a definite change in the balance of power in the Holy Places is discernable : Orthodox influence is renascent at the expense of Latin, a process facilitated by the conquest of Palestine by Sultan Selim I in 1517 from the Egyptian Mamelukes. The Latin clergy were subjects of the Powers with whom the Ottoman Empire was constantly engaged in war, and it is natural that the Sultan's Orthodox subjects should be treated with favour at the expense of the " Frangi." The result was that in 1552 by Imperial decree the Franciscans were ejected from the Cenacle, which passed into Moslem hands.*

The Confraternity of the Holy Sepulchre also comes into existence at this time, founded by the Patriarch Dositheos in 1662, and assumes the direction of Orthodox interests in the Holy Land.

From the second half of the 16th till the 19th century the possession of the Holy Places is in the forefront of international politics. The

• According to some authorities this drastic action of the Sultan was on account of the alarm caused by a rumour, started originally at the end of the 12th century by Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, that some Christian workmen had discovered on Mount Zion the Tombs of David and Solomon and the other Kings of Judah. The homeless Franciscans were given shelter by the Armenians, until they acquired the Convent of St. Saviour from the Orthodox, who had in their turn obtained it from the Georgians. In memory of this, for some time the Franciscans used to hold a service once annually in the Armenian Cathedral, but the custom has now fallen into desuetude.

The Cenacle is not a subject of concern to this study, being absolutely under the authority of the Moslem Waqf of Nebi Daud, who however arrange to open it to the many that are anxious to visit a site of such sacred traditions.

The delicate nature of this question was pointed out in District Governor's letter, 4470/A.G. of 30 August, 1921.

Its retrocession is one of the most insistent claims of the Franciscans, in which they receive powerful political support from Italy. This was illustrated on the occasion of the visit of H.R.H. the Prince of Piedmont in 1928, when an incident occurred due to the Moslems objecting to the removal of the carpets— see Deputy District Commissioner's confidential letter of 10 April, 1928, and Despatch to Secretary of State, No. Conf.A. 14846/28 of 20 September, 1928.

difficulties with which the Latins were beset aroused the interest of the Latin Powers, especially France, whose Ambassador became their spokesman at the Porte. On the other side, the Orthodox cause is always championed by the CEcumenical Patriarch, and moreover another Power now appears on the scene. Western European influence in the Ottoman Empire in any form was an obstacle to the ambitions of Russia, and as a counter move to the French capitulations Russia assumed at the Treaty of Kiichiik Kainarji in 1774, the protection of the Sultan's Orthodox subjects ;

consequently we find from now onwards the Russian Ambassador the protagonist of the Orthodox.

Time and again in these centuries the praedominium alternates. Opportunity was taken of the Peace Treaties imposed on the Turk during these centuries to assert Latin supremacy, but as the Turk recovered from his defeats the pendulum soon swung round again. The Capitulations of 1604, 1673, and 1740, confirmed the Latins in the possession of the Holy Sepulchre and Calvary, the Church of the Nativity, and the Church of the Virgin. On the other hand, in 1637 the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Theophanes III, obtained a firman in favour of the Orthodox and finally in 1757, while the European Powers were engaged in continual strife among themselves, this element definitely regained the supremacy. The Orthodox and Franciscan archives contain many firmans and hojjets (i.e., decisions of the Sharia Court at Jerusalem) and other documents of this period which are quoted in support of their claims ; they cannot, however, be considered of much value except as an indication of the nature of the struggle and of the profit that must have flowed into the coffers of the Turk.

It is to be noted that during this period of international contention the smaller rites decline, if they do not drop out altogether, being unable to bear the exactions of the Turkish Government which was intent on making the utmost out of the dissensions of the Christians.*

The close of the 18th century therefore saw the Orthodox Church paramount, and their position consolidated, a process facilitated by events elsewhere. The French Revolution, which prescribed all religion and later the Napoleonic Wars occupied the attention of Europe for two decades and a-half. So when in 1808 the Rotunda was burnt down, the Orthodox Church seized this opportunity and powerfully supported by Russia rebuilt the Church,•)• effacing what

• Vincent and Abel (Jerusalem, p. 319) quote an authority of this period who says in connexion with the Church of the Virgin that " Les musulmans sont feroces sur le status quo. On n'oserait pas deblayer le grotte sans la permission des Tures, et ils n'accordent ces sortes de permission qu'avec de grandes difficulties et force's par de grosses sommes d'argent, auxquelles seules il se laissent vaincre."

f It is said to have cost two and a half million roubles to get leave to repair the Church and one and a half million to do the repairing.

remained of the work of the Crusaders, notably the Tombs of the Latin Kings and erected over the Tomb the present modern and featureless shrine. Yet even at this time, a declaration was obtained by the Latin Powers from the Sultan to the effect that this restoration by the Orthodox was not to be considered as having any influence on the rights and privileges of the various communities in the Holy Places.

D. The Declaration of the Status Quo.

The third and fourth decades of the 19th century saw a revival of the struggle over the Holy Places and renewed attempts by the Roman Catholic Powers to reverse the position. The political circumstances of the time were favourable ; Turkey was embarrassed as the results of the war with the Egyptians and, for the first time perhaps, the Orthodox cause was weakened at the Porte by reason of the Greek War of Independence. Further, the French " Drang nach Osten " had begun to make itself felt. In 1847 the Latin Patriarchate, that had been dormant since the fall of the Latin Kingdom of the Middle Ages, was revived under the asgis of France, the official protector of all the Roman Catholics in the Ottoman Empire, and assumed direction of all Roman Catholic interests in the Holy Land. In 1850 the French representative at Constantinople, General Aupick, on behalf of his Government and the Catholic Kingdoms of Sardinia, Belgium, Spain, and Austria, submitted to the Sublime Porte a demand for the restoration to the Franciscans of the Holy Places they possessed prior to 1757, that is to say, the Rotunda and the Edicule, the Stone of Unction, the Seven Arches of the Virgin and the Prison of Christ, the Courtyard of the Holy Sepulchre, the Church of the Virgin, and the Church of the Nativity. These claims were received with no less powerful opposition on the part of Russia, the Czar threatening to withdraw his representative at the Porte if they were entertained, and the dispute was one of the causes that led to the Crimean War.*

An important firman issued in 1852 by Sultan Abdul Mejid,f after making reference to a careful examination that had been conducted by a Committee appointed by the Porte, rejected the claim put forward by the Latins to the absolute possession of the major shrines, as detailed by General Aupick, and directed that the Status Quo be maintained in all these places. This firman constitutes the official Declaration of the Status Quo in the Holy Places. Shortly afterwards the Crimean War broke out. The Treaty of Paris at its close in 1855 left the position as it was, the Signatory Powers, including Russia, undertaking to uphold the Status Quo ante bellum

* For an account of these times, see Consul Finn's " Stirring Times." f Khatt-i-Sherif of Jemad-al-Awal, 1268 (A. H.) quoted in extenso by Archbishop Themeles.

in the Holy Places in every respect. Satisfaction was given to the French by the grant of the ruined Crusader Church of St. Anne, built over the traditional site of the House of the Virgin, then a disused mosque.* Later, in 1868 and 1869, when the question was raised again, the Sultan Abdul Mejid by firman confirmed the Status Quo.f Again in 1878 in the Treaty of Vienna that terminated the Russo-Turkish War it was specified that no alteration was to be made in the Status Quo, without the general consent of the Signatory Powers.

As the result of these negative solutions the jealousies of the rival Powers, reproduced among the different rites officiating in the Sanctuaries, were in no way diminished. Russian " peaceful penetration " in the Holy Land was intensified and great churches and hospices were built in Jerusalem, on the Mount of Olives, at Geth-semane, at Nazareth, Hebron and Jericho. On the other hand, the Latin Patriarchate and the French Consulate-General combined their resources. Even in those instances where under the Status Quo matters were clearly defined, under such conditions agreement or co-operation was impossible.

E. The Great War.

Such was the position at the outbreak of the Great War. The Peace found the Holy Places once more under the control of a Christian Power, not, as in the days of the Crusaders, under the shadow of a perpetual menace, but sheltered in the world-wide dominion of Great Britain, the Turk pushed back far beyond reach, and, most important perhaps of all, Russian influence extinguished. A little later also (in 1924) the French Protectorate over Roman Catholics terminated.

The peacemakers saw an exceptional opportunity to find a solution for the question of the Holy Places which had been shelved on so many previous occasions. Following on a provision to that effect in the Peace Treaty with Turkey, a clause was inserted in the Mandate for Palestine providing for the constitution of a Holy Places Commission.^ The composition of the Commission has, however, been a stumbling block that has up to date proved insurmountable. In 1922 the British Government formulated certain proposals in this regard, but, owing to the difficulties raised by the Roman Catholic Powers, withdrew them shortly afterwards and adopted the attitude

* It had previously been offered to the Anglican Church.

f This Sultan had realised that these involved questions could not be left to the jurisdiction of local officials, and had in 1853 decreed that all matters relating to the Holy Places were to be referred to the Sublime Porte itself (Khatt-i-Sherif of 17 Shaaban, 1269 A.H.).

j: See Appendix A.

of taking no further action until these Powers had reached agreement among themselves, when it would re-examine the question and attempt to find a solution satisfactory to all parties.

In 1923 a proposal was put forward by the Secretary of State that, pending the constitution of the Holy Places Commission, a special Commission of Inquiry composed of one or more British judges not residing in Palestine should be appointed ad hoc to deal with any disputes arising with regard to the Holy Places that would come under the jurisdiction of the Holy Places Commission, were it in existence. The Foreign Office expressed their concurrence and the Government of Palestine accepted the proposal.* The matter has not, however, been proceeded with, and any dispute that now arises is submitted to Government. If the Government's decision is not accepted, a formal protest is made and the fact is recorded that no change in the Status Quo is held to have occurred.f

The present position therefore is that the arrangements existing in 1852 which corresponded to the Status Quo of 1757 as to the rights and privileges of the Christian communities officiating in the Holy Places have to be most meticulously observed, and what each rite practised at that time in the way of public worship, decorations of altars and shrines, use of lamps, candelabra, tapestry and pictures, and in the exercise of the most minute acts of ownership and usage has to remain unaltered. Moreover, the Status Quo applies also to the nature of the officiants. Thus, the Franciscans alone of the Roman Catholic Orders are allowed to celebrate Mass independently in the Holy Places, although tlie clergy of any Roman Catholic Order can attend. The Patriarch himself, of course, has the right to pontificate. Similarly, of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches none other than the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem has any standing in the Holy Places. The Russian Church during the last quarter of the 19th century made strenuous efforts to obtain independent privileges and to maintain altars of their own, for the saying of the Liturgy in the Russian language, but this was successfully opposed by the Hellenic elements. \ Russian clergy are, however, able to take part in the services.

* See Secretary of State's Despatch, No. 332, of 15 March, 1923, and High Commissioner's reply. Despatch No. 314, of 5 April, 1928.

f The Palestine (Holy Places) Order-in-Council, 1924, ousts all matters connected with the Holy Places and religious buildings and sites or with the rights and claims of the different religious communities from the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, and provides furthermore that the High Commissioner is to decide finally if a question arises whether any cause or matter comes within this prescription. See Appendix B.

% For the part taken by Russia in the dispute between the Convent and the arabophone Orthodox, see Bertram and Young Report, Chapter III. In 1914, on the declaration of war between Russia and Turkey, the Russian Monastery at Ain Farah was burnt by their rivals.

Roman Catholicism now claims the return to the arrangement of 1740, which was in effect the position in the 14th century at the close of the Crusading era, when the majority of the shrines were in the hands of the Latins.* This the Orthodox world opposes on the ground that there is no justice in selecting the rare periods when, as the result of outside political influences, the Latins were for the moment predominant.

THE HOLY PLACES AFFECTED BY THE STATUS QUO AND ITS GENERAL PRINCIPLES.

1. The Holy Sepulchre with all its dependencies.

2. The Deir al Sultan.

3. The Sanctuary of the Ascension.

4. The Tomb of the Virgin (near Gethsemane).

5. The Church of the Nativity.

The Grotto of the Milk and the Shepherd's Field near Bethlehem are also in general subject to the Status Quo, but in this connexion there is nothing on record concerning these two sites.

The Wailing Wall and Rachel's Tomb, of which the ownership is in dispute between the Moslems and the Jews, are similarly subject to the Status Quo.

In all matters of principle relating to the Status Quo in the Christian Holy Places, only the Orthodox, Latin, and Armenian Orthodox rites are considered. This follows the arrangement under the Turkish Government, corresponding to the Administrative Organization of the " Rayahs," i.e., the non-Moslem Ottomans, into " millets " or " nations " of these denominations, the other Orthodox Eastern rites being grouped with the Armenians.

By the Latin rite is invariably meant the Roman Catholic Church of the Latin rite as distinct from the Uniates, and moreover as regards the Holy Places, the Franciscan Fraternity of tlie Custodia di Terra Santa.

Certain fixed principles are followed in the administration of the Status Quo. Thus, authority to repair a roof or floor implies the right to an exclusive possession on the part of the restorers. Again, the right to hang a lamp or picture or to change a lamp or picture is a recognition of exclusive possession of a pillar or wall. The right of other communities to cense at a chapel implies that the proprietorship is not absolute.

* See Les Lieux Saints. Schedules on pp. 9-13.

For the purpose of defining the Status Quo, the Holy Places and their component parts may be divided into certain categories :—

(1) The parts that are accepted to be the common property of the three rites in equal shares ;

(2) The parts claimed by one rite as under its exclusive jurisdiction, but in which the other rites claim joint proprietorship ;

(3) The parts of which the ownership is disputed between two rites ;

(4) The parts of which one rite has the exclusive use, but qualified by the right of the others to cense and visit it during their offices ;

(5) The parts which are in the exclusive jurisdiction of one rite, but are comprised within the ensemble of the Holy Place.

In all these cases the application of the Status Quo varies in strictness. In the parts in dispute nothing is allowed to be done in the way of innovation or repair by any party. In the case of an urgent matter the work has to be carried out by the Government or the local authority, and the question of payment is left in suspense. The Government in this respect are equally bound by the Status Quo. It may be possible, however, to make an arrangement whereby the Community that desires to carry out work in a locality in dispute may be permitted to do so, provided the other rites are allowed to carry out equivalent work in places where they maintain a similar claim.

In other instances it is usually sufficient for the rite in occupation to give formal notice of intended work, but any fundamental innovation would have to be the subject of special arrangement.

THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE.

The whole ensemble of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, that is to say the Parvis and Entrance, The Rotunda, the Katholikon, the main fabric of the Church, and the commemorative shrines and chapels are subject to the regulation of the Status Quo in a greater or less degree.

The present Church is in outline the Church of the Crusaders erected following the partial reconstruction by the Emperor Mono-machus after its destruction by the fanatical Caliph al Hakem and dedicated on 15 July, 1149. The indifferent style of much of the architecture and the unsightly decoration are the result of the tasteless restoration after the fire of 1808,* and the fetters of the Status Quo account for the state of dirt and dilapidation which is characteristic of many parts of the building.

* The fire is said to have started in the Armenian Gallery and to have been caused by a drunken monk, who endeavoured to put it out by pouring aqua vitae over it, which he mistook for water. The danger of fire in the galleries and storerooms is always present.

As in the other Holy Places, the three Patriarchates of Jerusalem alone are considered as having possessory rights in the Church with the exception of the small Chapel in the possession of the Copts. They alone have the right to require the entrance door to be opened on their behalf, to enter in religious procession and to officiate regularly at their will. As is again the case elsewhere, of the Latin Orders, only the Franciscans of the Custodia di Terra Santa have the right to officiate independently. The Copts after a long period of penetration succeeded in establishing an independent foothold in the 16th century, but have no formal residence. They do not hold daily services, but have the right of censing at the shrines : similarly, the Syrian Jacobites have no formal residence and officiate only on Holy Days. Neither the Copts nor the Syrian Jacobites may hold processions unless in company with the Armenians, with the exception that on Good Friday afternoon they each hold a procession independently, after giving prior notification to the Orthodox and the Latins. The Abyssinians have no residence or accommodation of any sort and hold no offices within the precincts of the Holy Sepulchre, excepting their Easter services on the roof of St. Helena's Chapel, around which they reside.*

In the various component parts of the Church the position at the present moment can be summarized as follows :—

(1) The Entrance Doorway and the Facade, the Stone of Unction, the Parvis of the Rotunda, the great Dome and the Edicule are common property. The three rites consent to the partition of the costs of any work of repair between them in equal proportion. The Entrance Courtyard is in common use, but the Orthodox alone have the right to clean it.

(2) The Dome of the Katholikon is claimed by the Orthodox as being under their exclusive jurisdiction. The other Communities do not recognize this, maintaining that it is part of the general fabric of the Church, and demand a share in any costs of repair. The Orthodox, however, refuse to share payment with any other Community. The same conditions apply mutatis mutandis to the Helena Chapel, claimed by the Armenians, and the Chapel of the Invention of the Cross claimed by the Latins.

(3) The ownership of the Seven Arches of the Virgin is in dispute between the Latins and the Orthodox, of the Chapel of St. Nicodemus between the Armenians and the Syrian Jacobites, and of the Deir al Sultan between the Copts and Abyssinians. In these cases neither party will agree to the other doing any work of repair or to divide the costs.

* History relates, however, that all these rites as well as others, such as the Georgians, Nestorians, and Maronites, had possessions at one time or another in the Church, which they lost in the course of time, principally from their inability to pay the heavy dues imposed on them by their Turkish masters. See p. 8.

(4) The Chapel of the Apparition, the Calvary Chapels, and the Commemorative shrines are in the sole possession of one or other of the rites, but the others enjoy certain rights of office therein. Any projected innovation or work of repair is to be notified to the other rites.

(5) The Katholikon, the Galleries and the Chapels in the Courtyard (other than the Orthodox Chapels on the West) are in the exclusive jurisdiction of one or other of the rites, but subject to the main principles of the Status Quo as being within the ensemble of the Holy Sepulchre.

The three Patriarchates of Jerusalem are each represented by a Superior and clergy permanently resident within the precincts of the Church, and no other rite is entitled to be thus represented.

The hours of the services of the various Communities are normally agreed on between the Superiors concerned, and only on rare occasions where festivals coincide is any difficulty caused.* Each rite holds its fixed offices daily, but it is unnecessary to specify these in detail. The Orthodox, however, have the right to say the Liturgy at night before the Latins and Armenians officiate.

As a general rule, when minor difficulties arise over the hours of the service agreement is arrived at between the Superiors, who readily co-operate to ensure good order and avoid misunderstanding.

The Parvis.

The Courtyard or Parvis is entered from the Muristan on the east, and down a flight of steps from the Christian Street on the west. The remains of the 12th century arcade, which stood along the north front of the Hospital of the Knights of St. John, are still visible facing the Church.

The Courtyard is surrounded by Chapels and Monasteries belonging to the different rites. On the south side is the Orthodox Convent of Gethsemane and the Courtyard of the Omariyeh Mosque.f On the west, the Orthodox Chapels of St. James, St. Mary Magdalene, and of the Forty Martyrs.^ On the north, the Orthodox Chapel of St. Mary of Egypt, beneath the Latin Chapel of St. Mary's Agony. On the east, the Chapel of St. Michael, below the Chapel of the Four Persons, both at present under Coptic control, the Armenian Chapel

* Naturally, complications would be more frequent were the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem to adopt the Gregorian Calendar, as has been the case elsewhere.

f The true Mosque of Omar, built on the traditional site where Omar prayed before the Holy Sepulchre.

{ Actually the lower storey of the belfry. For a long time the belfry was disused, as the use of bells was forbidden by the Moslems.

of St. James and the Orthodox Convent of Abraham.* The whole of the Parvis, including the entrance, and all the Chapels on the north and east sides and the exterior of the Orthodox Chapels on the west are subject to the regulations of the Status Quo.

In 1927, at the time of the Orthodox Ceremony of the Washing of the Feet, the Abyssinians protested against the Copts lighting a Lamp in the Chapel of St. Michael, but it was decided that this was the usual practice.

The pavement and the two external doors are the common property of the three Patriarchates. The Orthodox sweep the Courtyard and keep it clean and hold the keys of the external doors, but all repairs are to be conducted at the joint expense of the three Patriarchates concerned, or failing that, by the local authorities. In 1921 the Orthodox Patriarchate repaired the latch of the eastern entrance door, claiming that this was their sole right. The Latin Patriarch objected, and after investigation which showed that similar work had been done previously by the Municipality in 1879 and 1906,"I" the above ruling was given.

The steps leading up to the Chapel of St. Mary's Agony are Latin property. The question as to who was to clean the lowest step, which is barely above the level of the Courtyard, was in 1901 the cause of a sanguinary encounter between the Latin and Orthodox monks.f The position now is that the Latins brush it daily at dawn, and the Orthodox at times together with the rest of the Parvis.

In front of the entrance to the Church is the Tombstone of the English Crusader, Philip d'Aubigny, tutor of Henry III, Governor of Guernsey, and one of the signatories of the Magna Charta, who died in Jerusalem in A.D. 1236. Thanks to the fact that for a long period it was protected by a stone divan built over it for the use of the Moslem guards, the Tombstone is in a tolerably good state of preservation. To protect it from further damage the Pro-Jerusalem Society in 1925 arranged for it to be sunk below the level of the Parvis and covered with an iron grill. § The necessary funds were provided by the Daubney family, the lineal descendants of the Crusader, and by the Island of Guernsey.||

• In 1885, the Patriarch Nicodemus assigned to the Church of England the Chapel of Abraham on the upper terrace of the Orthodox Convent of this name for the celebration of Anglican services. This act conveyed a privilege but no right of any description.

f On this last occasion, the Municipality put in iron locks, but this was objected to as an innovation and the wooden ones were replaced.

t In this afiray several Spanish and Italian monks were injured, and their respective Consuls took measures to obtain satisfaction on their behalf. This was objected to by the French representatives, who maintained that this was their prerogative in view of the protectorate exercised by France over all Roman Catholics in the Ottoman Empire. They were not, however, successful in their pretensions.

§ During the operation, the bones and some of the accoutrements of the Crusader were discovered and the stone was replaced exactly above them.

|| Reference District Commissioner's letter. No. 4025, of 11 June, 1925.

Instrumental bands are not allowed to enter the Parvis. When this ruling was given in 1925 the Latin authorities objected, citing instances before the war when bands had been admitted. It was established, however, that on these occasions the Turkish Government had protested and held the practice to be irregular.

National flags, if unfurled, are similarly forbidden, and neither flags nor bands are allowed within the precincts of the Church.

The Entrance.

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is entered from the Parvis* by a single portal, closed by a massive wooden door in two leaves. Originally it was a double entrance, but the eastern portal was walled up by Saladin.f

Above the portals are sculptured tympana of 12th century work.j:

The left-hand panel is in a badly damaged condition. §

In May, 1927, it was noticed that a further fragment had recently disappeared. Whether this was due to wilful damage or to the effects of the heavy snowfall that was experienced that year was uncertain. Protective work was carried out by the Government at the joint expense of the three Patriarchates.

Above the doorway runs a classical cornice, a relic of the Byzantine buildings. This is reached from the windows of the Armenian Chapel of St. John, and this Community has the use thereof on the occasion of the festival ceremonies that take place in the Courtyard. The upper cornice is used in the same manner by the Orthodox. These two cornices are in a damaged condition and the whole facade is badly weather-beaten and requires expert attention.

The keys of the entrance doors are in the custody of Moslem janitors, who occupy a divan just within. According to tradition, the origin of the appointment of Moslem guardians dates from the

* This is the only entrance to the floor of the Church. Another entrance existed previously from the west and the arches may still be seen near the Christian Quarter Police Station.

f The hope is held in Latin (and some Anglican) circles that one day this other portal may be reopened ; the Orthodox on the other hand would oppose this, as thereby the sites of the Tombs of the Latin Kings which were covered over at their instigation at the beginning of the last century would be opened up.

^ The frieze is of French marble and was probably worked in France. The left-hand panel depicts scenes from the life of Our Lord, the Raising of Lazarus, the Triumphant Entry, and the Last Supper, and the right-hand one is composed of a mythological subject. Formerly there were mosaics over both lintels.

t § A portion was acquired by tile French archaeologist Clermont-Gannaud some years ago and is now in the Louvre."] It has been suggested to the French Government that this missing fragment should be returned and replaced, but only a cast was offered.

time of the Khalif Omar. It is a recorded fact that the Arab Conqueror refrained from entering the Anastasis and entrusted it to the Patriarch Sophronius, placing it at the same time under the protection of Moslem guards. After the Saracens had finally recovered control of the Holy City from the Crusaders in 1289, the custody of the keys was given to the family of El Insaibi to prevent disputes between the various Christian Communities over their possession. Suleiman the Magnificent and other Turkish Sultans confirmed this practice. Ibrahim Pasha divided the guardianship with the Judeh Family, and this is the position at the present time, the Judeh Family holding the keys and the Insaibi having charge of the actual opening of the door.

The right of requiring the door to be opened is confined to the three Patriarchs of Jerusalem. For each time one leaf of the door is opened a payment of 80 mils is made to the janitors, and for each time both leaves, 180 mils. They receive as well some gratuities from the Copts and the Jacobites. Two-thirds of the payments made are assigned to the Insaibi Family and one-third to the Judeh. The door is opened by the different rites in turn ; thus in Easter week, on Maundy Thursday, the door is opened by the Orthodox, on Good Friday by the Latins, and on Easter Eve (the day of the Holy Fire Ceremony) by the Armenians. The Community which desires the doors to be opened knocks on the small " guichet " in the door, the key of which is kept by the Orthodox. The Orthodox servant notifies the Moslem custodians who come and open the door, a ladder, which is common property, being passed out for this purpose through the small " guichet." No dispute has been brought to notice regarding the opening and closing of the doors. Apart from his other functions, the Moslem janitor has always been treated as the neutral and disinterested authority on matters concerning the rights of the various Communities in the Holy Sepulchre.*

The three Patriarchs of Jerusalem alone have the right of entering the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in sacerdotal procession. Visiting Ecclesiastics and pilgrimages of these rights are permitted to enter in procession, but provided no sacerdotal vestments are worn ; in the other event, • the Patriarch must accompany the procession himself. Thus, on several occasions Cardinals have visited the Church.

In 1927 the Roumanian Patriarch and Co-Regent Miron Cristea, who was making an official visit to Jerusalem, entered the Church in procession, and after vesting within, was received at the entrance to the Tomb by the Patriarch Damianos. The Latin Patriarch protested that the entrance of the Roumanian Patriarch and his act in giving an address in Roumanian by the Tomb constituted breaches

* Hence the sealing by him of the door of the Tomb during the Ceremony of the Holy Fire.

of the Status Quo, in that the Roumanian Orthodox Church had no connexion with the Greek Orthodox Church, and that a comparison with the visits of the Cardinals who are all of the same Church as himself was not relevant. The Government decided that the Status Quo had not been violated by the Patriarch's entrance, nor by the use of the Roumanian language, as there is no one universal tongue in the Eastern Orthodox Church.*

If a visiting ecclesiastic of note of the Coptic, Jacobite, or Abyssinian rites desires to visit the Holy Sepulchre, notification is made to the Armenian authorities, who arrange for the opening of the door, after informing the Orthodox and Latins, and receive him at the entrance, placing a carpet for him before the Stone of Unction. Two Armenian clergy also accompany the visitor to the Tomb.')"

The Stone of Unction.

Just within the entrance lies the Stone of Unction, commemorating the spot where Our Lord's Body was anointed before entombment. The Stone is of native red limestone, nine feet long by four feet six inches wide and one foot high, and has, it is asserted, been placed there to protect the real stone underneath.

The first mention of the Stone of Unction as a feature of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is in the narrative of Saewulf, who made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the 12th century. It was at that time in the Chapel of the Virgin, which existed on the site of the present belfry ; at another time it was in the Chapel of St. Mary, somewhere on the site of the present Courtyard.

The Stone with the floor surmounting it is common property, and before it all genuflect on entering the Church. The Lamps suspended above it belong to the various rites as follows :—

4 to the Orthodox Community ;

1 to the Latin Community ;

2 to the Armenian Community ;

1 to the Coptic Community.

The great candlesticks belong two to each of the three principal communities.

* See Deputy District Commissioner's letter. No. 10/60, of 24 June, 1927, to the Chief Secretary. The possibility that the Patriarch of Jerusalem might endeavour to make a departure in favour of the Patriarch of Roumania so as to influence the Roumanian Government in the matter of the confiscated properties of the Jerusalem Patriarchate in Bessarabia was not overlooked :

on the other hand, the Jerusalem Patriarchate are intensely jealous of their privileges and rights in the Holy Places, vis-a-vis the other Orthodox Churches and could be entrusted to preserve them with the utmost vigilance.

f A breach of these provisions was reported in April, 1927, when a Coptic procession entered the Church wearing vestments and censing.

Turning to the left the door on the left leads up to a room with a curious window, which is used by the Copts. The room opposite is Orthodox.*

The Station of the Holy Women.

Between the'Stone and the Rotunda is a circular slab in the floor covered by a metal cage. This is said to mark the spot where the women waited and beheld the Crucifixion, and where the Virgin Mary stood while the Body of Our Lord was being anointed for Burial. The Armenians have charge of this part of the Church, their Priory is here and a steep staircase leads up to their portion of the Gallery and to their Chapel of St. John the Almoner.f As mentioned previously, the windows of this Chapel lead out to the cornice overlooking the Courtyard.

The Rotunda.

Eighteen columns support the iron Dome and Galleries that enclose the Edicule covering the Tomb. The Dome is the common property of the three rites and was reconstructed in 1866 after fifteen years of diplomatic negotiations at the joint expense of the Turkish (as representing the Armenians), French and Russian Governments. ^

The floor of the Rotunda within the circle of pillars is common property. No fixed furniture is permitted in it, and it must be kept free for circulation at all times. The three principal rites clean and sweep it in turns by weeks.

The portion of the Rotunda between the Edicule and the Orthodox Katholikon is known as the Latin Choir. Within this space the Latins hold regular services and the benches, lectern and other pieces of furniture and the hangings on the pillars, as well as the small room in the northern pillar, are their property. In February, 1928, the Orthodox objected to the Latins repairing alone one of the benches, but it was shown that these benches bear their distinctive marks and are their absolute property. This space is subject to the principles of the freedom of passage in the Rotunda and the two other principal rites have the right to hold religious offices here. When an office is being held it is accepted that the rites that are not worshipping and the general public refrain from passing in front of the Tomb.

The large candlesticks in front of the Edicule are the property of the three communities, two to each.

* This room is used as a First Aid Post during the great festivals.

•f He was Patriarch of Alexandria at the time the Church was destroyed by the Persians and despatched money, tools and workmen to assist in its rebuilding. He was the Patron Saint of the merchants of Amalfi, who founded the hostelry in Jerusalem, which gave rise to the Order of Hospitallers of St. John.

^. The wooden Dome that previously covered the Rotunda was consumed in the 1808 fire. In the reconstruction, however, the dimensions were accurately reproduced.

In 1573 the Copts, despite the protests of the other rites, were able to build the small Chapel they own against the west end of the Edicule. This Chapel is their exclusive possession except that its exterior is subject to regulation under the Status Quo. The Register of the Armenian Priory of the Holy Sepulchre contains an entry dated 4 August, 1901, to the effect that the Copts, in return for the construction of a drain under the area in their occupation, were granted " as a favour " the right to sweep and wash the roof and exterior of this Chapel, which privilege would be withdrawn " in the event of their creating disorders or trying to acquire new rights." For a long time, i.e., between 1920 and 1924, the right of passage by the entrance of this Chapel was the subject of a prolonged and bitter dispute between the Copts and the Latins. When the Copts are celebrating their Mass the passage way, which is very narrow, becomes blocked by the worshippers The servants of the Franciscan Convent of the Holy Sepulchre bearing food-stuffs, etc., are accustomed to cross by this way to avoid passing in front of the Edicule. When this occurred at the time the Coptic service was being held, the Copts refused to allow the servants to pass. The Latins accordingly refused to allow the Coptic Deacon to exercise his right of censing in the Latin Chapel of the Apparition. The Copts for their part attempted to pass through the Latin service in their Choil in front of the Edicule, and on another occasion assaulted the Friday procession at the IXth Station near the entrance to the Coptic Convent.* After many efforts on the part of the Government to effect a compromise had failed, it was decided that the right of passage must be upheld and the obstruction was forbidden.! The Latins also have the right to pass benches by this way for use during their services on Palm Sunday and Good Friday. The benches have to be removed immediately after the conclusion of the services.

In 1920 the Orthodox placed tables with images thereon round the Edicule. It was complained that this was an innovation and the practice was forbidden.

All round the Rotunda are small rooms in the occupation of various rites and opening into it. These are constructed in the ambulatory that originally encircled this part of the Church. The columns also, together with the intervals between them, belong to different rites. With the exception mentioned below, the proprietorship of each column is indicated by the picture or ikon hanging on it. Beginning from the east, columns 18 to 15 are Armenian ; then

* On another occasion a dispute occurred between these two Communities over the position of the Chair of the Coptic Convent Kavass, which it was complained impeded the worshippers at this station. Instructions were given that the Chair was to be placed on the doorstep of the Convent when the procession was in progress.

f S^e Despatch No. Pol. 171 of 11 March, 1924, in file No. 4773.

until column 12 Orthodox. The Copts have the use of the next two rooms, but columns 11 and 10 are Armenian, as also Nos. 9 and 8 in front of the Chapel of St. Nicodemus. The big pictures on columns 10 and 11 are however Coptic.* From column 8 to column 5 is Orthodox property. Between columns 5 and 4 a common passageway used for the storage of furniture leads past a walled-in Byzantine column to the closed-up entrance of St. Mary.f Columns 5 to 1 are Latin.

A dispute arose in 1924 about the right of the Copts to dust the doors leading into the room they occupy between columns 11 and 10. The Armenians claimed the exclusive right, as the Copts only have the use of the room by their permission, and by virtue of their situation as their subordinates (cf. the Jacobites), j: The Armenians produced documentary evidence in support of their claim § and the Government decided that the exclusive right to dust the doors was enjoyed by them.||

The Edicule.

The Edicule which encloses the Chapel of the Angel and the Tomb was erected in the place of the Crusaders shrine after the fire of 1808 ;

the architect was a certain Commenus of Mitylene, whose name is inscribed just inside the inner doorway.

The Edicule is the common property of the three rites. In 1926, the Government, after much preliminary negotiation, undertook with the consent of the Patriarchates and at their joint expense an investigation into its structural condition. The report showed that, whereas the construction was very indifferent, there was no immediate danger of collapse, and it was not found necessary to do any repair work.^

The lamps and fixtures that hang on the exterior are the property of the three principal communities in specific proportion.

On certain of their Feast Days, the three communities decorate the Edicule with heavy cornices and other ornamentations, in carefully regulated quantities. In 1920, at the instance of the Inspector of Antiquities, they were requested to desist from the practice, owing to the insecure state of the building, but it has now been resumed.

The interior of the Sanctuary is open at all times to pilgrims and visitors. In the centre of the Chapel of the Angel is a pedestal supporting a portion of the Stone on which, according to tradition,

* This is a departure from the general rule of proprietorship—see p. 12.

•I- See footnote on p. 17.

^ Seep. 12 and p. 26.

§ Letter of Mutesarrif to Armenian Patriarch, dated Mad. 29, 1315 (1901).

|| District Governor's letter, No. 4025/2, of 17 September, 1924.

^ See District Commissioner's letter. No. 5745/D.C., of 18 June, 1926.